Defamation, Dissent, and Censorship in the Holy Roman Empire, Ca
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
"So That The Common Man May See What Kind of Tree Bears Such Harmful Fruit": Defamation, Dissent, and Censorship In The Holy Roman Empire, ca. 1555-1648 Item Type text; Electronic Dissertation Authors Buehler, Paul Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 28/09/2021 17:13:25 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/581330 1 “SO THAT THE COMMON MAN MAY SEE WHAT KIND OF TREE BEARS SUCH HARMFUL FRUIT”: DEFAMATION, DISSENT, AND CENSORSHIP IN THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE, CA. 1555-1648 by PAUL BUEHLER ____________________________ A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 2015 2 THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA GRADUATE COLLEGE As members of the Dissertation Committee, we certify that we have read the dissertation prepared by Paul Buehler, titled “So That The Common Man May See What Kind Of Tree Bears Such Harmful Fruit”: Defamation, Dissent, And Censorship In The Holy Roman Empire, ca. 1555-1648, and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. _______________________________________________________________________ Date: (02 September 2015) Susan C. Karant-Nunn _______________________________________________________________________ Date: (02 September 2015) Ute Lotz-Heumann _______________________________________________________________________ Date: (02 September 2015) Paul Milliman Final approval and acceptance of this dissertation is contingent upon the candidate’s submission of the final copies of the dissertation to the Graduate College. I hereby certify that I have read this dissertation prepared under my direction and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement. ________________________________________________ Date: (02 September 2015) Dissertation Director: Susan C. Karant-Nunn ________________________________________________ Date: (02 September 2015) Dissertation Director: Ute Lotz-Heumann 3 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This dissertation has been submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this dissertation are allowable without special permission, provided that an accurate acknowledgement of the source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his or her judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author. SIGNED: Paul Buehler 4 Acknowledgments This work would have been impossible without the generous support of many people. I must insist that whatever in this study might be good or valuable, at this moment or in the future, is a credit to the people, organizations, and institutions I am about to name (and some I have certainly missed). This work’s errors, inaccuracies, and omissions are all mine. To my advisors and doctoral committee members, Drs. Susan Karant-Nunn, Ute Lotz- Heumann, and Paul Milliman, I express my deepest gratitude for your patience and expert guidance. I would never have conceived of this work, much less completed it, without your enduring support and encouragement. Research would not have been possible without the financial and logistical support of the Austrian-American Educational Commission (Fulbright) and the Austrian Agency for International Cooperation in Education and Research (OeAD). For the academic year 2011-2012, these agencies graciously gave me the means to work as a research scholar in Vienna, the most halcyon of settings for such an endeavor. I have rarely enjoyed such contentment. At the Haus-, Hof und Staatsarchiv, where I passed many happy hours laying the foundations for this dissertation, I give my deepest thanks to the archive’s director, Mag. Thomas Just. Deserving of praise, too, are the archivists and staff, who greeted me warmly every day and answered my every question and query knowledgeably. Certainly not least among those deserving recognition are my friends and colleagues at the University of Arizona, the Division for Late Medieval and Reformation Studies, and other academic institutions in the United States Europe. Their insight and encouragement were indispensable for the (now many) years it has taken to complete this work. To my family, there are many more thanks than there are words to express them. Not least to my wife, Marne, who happens to be my best friend and most inspiring muse. I am very lucky. 5 For Marne. 6 Table of Contents Introduction 9 The Case for Imperial Censorship 9 Primary Sources 17 Dramatis Personae 21 Organization 26 Chapter One: Libel in Imperial Censorship Laws, ca. 1521-1577 31 Imperial Libel Law from the Edict of Worms to the Augsburg Interim, ca. 1521-1548 32 Libel Law from the Religious Peace of Augsburg to the New Police Ordinance, ca. 1555-1570 42 Chapter Two: The Danger of Libel 55 Libel and Popular (Religious) Violence 56 Danger in Context: Where and When 64 In Consideration of the Victim 75 Chapter Three: The Nature of Libel 101 Malice, Truth, and Falsity 102 “So that the Common Man Can See What Sort of Tree Bears such Harmful Fruit” 104 Pseudonymous and Anonymous Texts 112 Libel as a Variety of Scholarship 119 Libel and the Limits of Confessionalization 131 Chapter Four: The Punishment of Libel 136 Punishing the Body: Arrest and Imprisonment 137 Discursus: Punishment of the Body and the Violence of the State Reconsidered 156 Material Punishments: Fines, Confiscation, and Suspension of the Trade 161 Tracing Outcomes 174 7 Chapter Five: The Administration and Enforcement of Imperial Censorship 182 Pre-Publication Censorship 182 Strategies for Enforceable Accountability 185 Imperial Print Privileges 189 Local Administration and Enforcement of Imperial Censorship Provisions 194 The Frankfurt Printers’ Ordinance of 1598 209 Chapter Six: The Imperial Book Commission, ca. 1579-1650 219 The Establishment of the Imperial Book Commission 220 Early Procedures 223 Conflicts with Bookmen: Resistance to Exemplars 231 Confessionalism and Imperial Print Privileges 240 Pre-Publication Censorship in Practice 242 Confessionalism and the Imperial Book Commission under Valentin Leucht 247 The Apostolic Book Commission: Confessional and Political Loyalties Collide 266 Conclusion 287 Bibliography 297 Primary Sources 297 Secondary and Edited Sources 300 8 Abstract For more than thirty years, historians of the Holy Roman Empire have registered little discernible interest in imperial censorship during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. As historical scholarship has evolved in its understanding of the Holy Roman Empire during this period, it has lagged behind in its appreciation for how imperial authorities controlled expression and regulated the book trade. Old assumptions about imperial censorship have been slow to wither and decay even though assumptions about the Empire have been reexamined and revised. Where a growing appreciation for the Empire’s complexities spurred interest in territorial and civic censorship, a corresponding interest in imperial censorship has not developed. Interestingly, the two – old assumptions and modern revisionist histories – have conspired to moot studies of the imperial government, its policies, and its procedures, which has meant that the significance of imperial censorship in the Empire has been largely overlooked. Moreover, historians’ attention to local controls and regulations has inspired a more nuanced approach to censorship than had previously prevailed, leading to a general reassessment of how censorship influenced the circulation and reception of ideas in both positive and negative ways. Imperial censorship has failed to register its mark in this regard as well. Using a combination of imperial censorship legislation, archival documents, and printed primary sources, this dissertation charts imperial censorship during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries as both a concept and a practice. Unable to enforce religious uniformity in the Empire after the Reformation’s successful establishment in the 1520s, imperial legislation came to rely on libel, rather than heresy, as the formal basis for its censorship policies. Libel was an ambiguous category of illicit expression, the interpretation of which depended a great deal on the contingencies of context and the subjective preferences of enforcers. This affected how imperial and local authorities, respectively, interacted on matters of censorship, requiring more negotiation and cooperation than has heretofore been appreciated. 9 Introduction The Case for Imperial Censorship This dissertation examines censorship in the Holy Roman Empire during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. More specifically, it offers a closer look at how censorship operated at the imperial level from the Diet of Worms in 1521 through the conclusion of the Thirty Years’ War in 1648. It assesses